Gender Differences in Resources and Negotiation Among Highly Motivated Physician-Scientists
Resources, including space, equipment, funding, personnel, and protected time, are essential in academic medical careers. Negotiation often plays a key role in the distribution of these resources.
This study explored gender differences in resources, negotiation behaviors, and negotiation outcomes in a sample of career development awardees.
Postal survey of a cohort of 1,708 clinician-researchers with responses from 1,275 (75 % response rate).
Researchers who received NIH K08 or K23 awards between 2006 and 2009.
We analyzed gender differences in resources, negotiation behaviors, and negotiation outcomes, using regression models adjusted for race, K award type, K award year, degree, academic rank, specialty, and institutional funding.
Over one-fifth of respondents reported inadequate access to research space and one-third had asked for increased space or equipment. Perceived adequacy of these physical resources did not differ significantly by gender, but a higher proportion of women reported inadequate access to grants administrators (34.8 %) and statistical support (49.9 %) than men (26.9 %; p = 0.002 and 43.4 %; p = 0.025, respectively). Women were more likely to have asked for reduction in clinical hours (24.1 % vs. 19.3 %; p = 0.02) and to have raised concerns about unfair treatment (50.2 % vs. 38.2 %; p < 0.001). Overall, 42.9 % of women and 35.9 % of men asked for a raise in the two years preceding the survey (p = 0.09), and among those who had asked for increased resources, the likelihood that the request was granted did not differ significantly by gender.
Many career development award recipients report resource needs and negotiate for increased resources. Gender differences in perceived access to research support personnel exist even in this select cohort of K awardees. Institutions should provide appropriate training in negotiation and ensure adequate and equitable distribution of resources to promote academic success.
KEY WORDSresources negotiation academic medicine gender
- 1.Hopkins N. A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT: how a committee on women faculty came to be established by the dean of the school of science, what the committee and the dean learned and accomplished, and recommendations for the future. MIT Fac News. 1999;11:1–15.Google Scholar
- 2.Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci. Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109. Accessed July 17, 2014.
- 4.Babcock L, Laschever S. Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
- 6.Kolb DM. Her Place At the Table. A Consideration of Gender Issues in Negotiation (Program on Negotiation working paper series). 1st ed. Harvard Law School: Boston, MA; 1988.Google Scholar
- 12.Fisher R, Ury WL, Patton B. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Penguin; 2011.Google Scholar
- 13.Principal Investigators Association. NIH career development (K) awards: Taking your research career to new heights. [Internet Webinar]. Available at: www.principalinvestigators.org/product/nih_career_development_k_awards. Accessed July 17, 2014.
- 14.Dillman D, Smyth J, Christian L. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons; 2009.Google Scholar
- 17.Willis GB. Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2005.Google Scholar
- 18.Jolliff L, Leadley J, Coakley E, Sloane RA. Women in U.S. Academic Medicine Statistics and Benchmarking Report 2011–2012 [Internet]. Available at: https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/Women %20in %20U %20S %20 %20Academic %20Medicine %20Statistics %20and %20Benchmarking %20Report %202011-20123.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2014.
- 29.Nonnemaker L. Women physicians in academic medicine: new insights from cohort studies. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:399–405.Google Scholar